|
Post by yanmacca on Jan 11, 2018 20:52:45 GMT
Tom, take that commander out of that tank and he could be in a HQ group in any army in the world in the last two hundred years. That's the point I was trying to get across, Chuck mentioned the FM radio, but many eastern European countries had no field radios from battalion down, so if Russian battalion commander gets word from his divisional HQ to get over the top, he had to send a runner or if he was lucky a field telephone to get his order through to his companies.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 13, 2018 19:52:38 GMT
The following probably should be somewhere else that deals directly with Custer's planning. If someone wants to move it that's OK. It is here because it ties in with period communications.
We all know by now that Custer divided his force into four distinct elements. They were then spread a great distance apart, and not able to receive voice commands, with the only recourse being messenger. I have looked hard for such events happening in the ACW. and my mention of Stuart's Dumfries (Christmas Raid 1862) a couple of weeks ago was part of that endeavor.
In that raid Stuart still exercised positive control over the three elements of his force, and they were all separated by some good number of miles.
So if Stuart could do it, and Custer apparently could not, WHY.
Here is what my research discovers. Stuart set three objectives for his force. All three were along the Telegraph Road (Modern US 1). He was trying to cut the road in three places, reconnoiter what the Union Army was up to, tear the place(s) up a bit and then withdraw. The difference I discovered is this. Stuart gave each of his three commanders explicit instructions on what to do, what not to do, and what to do in the event that he met the unexpected or if things started to circle the drain of the toilet bowl. As a result two objectives were met, the third turned back due to unexpected resistance, only to join one of the other raiding columns, and the whole managed to escape with few casualties, even though they were twenty to thirty miles behind enemy lines.
Now apply the same specific mission type orders to Custer's situation. Not only did he not issue such orders but was also completely out of timely communications with his other elements.
Today separation such as Custer had between his elements would be considered minimal. Then without both planning and communications they were deadly. Makes you wonder, does it not.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 30, 2018 17:08:14 GMT
For Dave: While waiting for the Barron book on North Africa to arrive, and having just finished the latest Clive Cussler, I pulled out "Chancellorsville" by Stephen Sears. I had not read it in more than twenty years, and I was drawn to the first three or four chapters where Sears outlines Hooker's plans and preparations in great detail.
Notable was Hooker's establishment of an intelligence service, and how he had that service working for him, doing what we now call intelligence preparation of the battle space. Probably should have already realized that something along these lines was done, but being among the mentally infirm, I did not recall from my previous reading just how thorough it was.
Hooker's use of deception was also first rate, him being able to steal the march on Lee by three days. That too was remarkable given the initial proximity of the armies.
Up to the time Hooker having set his initial objective as Chancellorsville, stopped at that place, everything he did had Lee on the ropes. Then he just seemed to lose his nerve as a couple of his divisions moved from Chancellorsville eastward toward Fredericksburg and ran into a thin line of confederates that were initially more of an outposting rather than a battle line. At that point Hooker just ran out of moves.
Highly recommended book.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Jan 30, 2018 22:28:45 GMT
QC As ole Joe himself said "To tell the truth, I just lost confidence in Joe Hooker." explains what happened. He was so over confident, like McClellan at Antietam, that he forgot that what Von Moltke said "no plan of operations extends with any certainty beyond the first contact with the main hostile force." as have many others.
I have not read "Chancellorsville" by Stephen Sears but as I have recently discovered that I had a GGGrandfather in the 3rd North Carolina Infantry in Trimble's Division in Jackson's Second Corps I will get a copy of it when I can save up for it. Regards David
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jan 30, 2018 23:03:08 GMT
Actually, and in spite of popular opinion of both McClellan and Hooker they were not bad general officers at all. Both were brilliant men who in their turn did much more to make the Army of the Potomac what it came to be, and was, then any others. Both were especially good organizers and trainers, and Hooker was far ahead of his contemporaries in innovation, and adapting innovation to military affairs.
Problem was that McClellan was not so hot as an Army commander, and no one ever saw anything of his abilities to command at a lower level. He may very well have been a real hot shot commanding a brigade, for all we will ever know. Hooker was not a good commander of an Army in the field, but at lower levels he was probably on par with his contemporaries. Hooker would have been a great operations officer or chief of staff for an aggressive army commander like a Hancock or Sheridan, who could let Hooker do all of the thinking and administering, while the commander concentrated on commanding. Had a guy like that once who was by any standard brilliant, and presented his ideas to me in such a way I would think his ideas my own.
|
|
dave
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,679
|
Post by dave on Feb 1, 2018 2:12:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 17, 2018 11:46:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Mar 2, 2019 15:49:20 GMT
I was sorting through my old wargame books and came accross this old jem, I have a fair few old wargaming books, many of which I have never wargamed with. This one is for the ACW and had a paragraph in it about cavalry. Here is the same book on Amazon, the original cost me only £1.50 in the mid 1970s, but a second hand one will now set you back £12.99.
Here is the paragraph;
Cavalry Tactics
Cavalry manoeuvred in column of fours for maximum flexibility; there is no choice but to use two abreast on the wargames table for this. The fighting formation was double line until 1862 but during that year both sides changed to single line. Again, cavalry in column suffers more casualties then cavalry in line, and this encourages players to use mostly the line formation.
It should be remembered that successful charges were generally only made over clear ground; any form of obstacle in the terrain could disrupt a charge, possibly injure men and horses and certainly enable a quick witted-enemy to catch the attackers at a disadvantage. This factor is also reflected in the rules by introducing penalties for those charging over rough ground.
The cavalry did not fight alongside the infantry because it could no longer charge infantry due to their increased firepower, but it fought a variety of actions with enemy cavalry, including sabre and revolver melees, dismounted actions with fire-arms and combinations of both these. Early in the war the union cavalry being at that time inferior to that of the south, adopted the roles of dragoons; exploiting their mobility to seize advanced positions until the arrival of the infantry, or to cover gaps in the battle line, or to cover retreats. Unfortunately, cavalry carbines did not stand up to prolonged firing, nor had the range of infantry weapons. this meant cavalry could not put up a prolonged resistance to infantry attack, and the dragoon role was therefore limited, even after 1864, when the US cavalry began to be armed with the devastating repeating carbines.
Confederate cavalry became famous for its dashing raids during this same period.
From 1863 the scene began to change. Cavalry melees were still fought, but now they tended to use carbines and revolvers instead of sabres and troopers often had two or four revolvers, two at the waist and two in saddle holsters. Confederate cavalry in the western theatre favoured shotguns, fired at close range at full gallop, then used their revolvers in the melee.
The greatest cavalry battle of the war was at Brandy Station, June 1863, involving almost 20.000 cavalry for more than twelve hours, and at the height of the battle charges and counter charges were made continuously for almost three hours. After Gettysburg Imboden’s cavalry guarded Lee’s retreat in a series of whirlwind melees with Buford’s Federal cavalry, but the pattern for all these melees was the same – hit fast, do as much damage as possible, and break away quickly. This hit-and-run type melee is the only possible way to engage with the rules set in this book.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Mar 2, 2019 17:11:06 GMT
There are many more than these two Ian, your folk spent a great deal of time witnessing the ACW. There was some limited participation as well. These guys were rather high level observers and advisors for the south.
Garnet Wolseley observed the ACW and spent time in the field with Lee and Longstreet. He thought very highly of Lee. I can recall reading something he wrote in which he said he had only two military heroes - Lee and Gordon.
The idea behind observing major wars of this kind, for non-participant countries, was to acquire lessons learned - in particular at this time, how the effects of modernized weapons technology were influencing battlefield tactics. Wolsleley wrote extensively about the ACW afterwards and you can also read of his adventures in Vol 1 of his autobiog - 'A Soldier's Life'. I cannot recall the title now but somebody in the US has published a compilation of his ACW writing in the not too distant past (by which I mean the last 20 years - I can't quote a year I'm afraid but some clever googling will soon find it I'm sure.)
Wolseley had to travel to the south incognito in civilian clothes and so on. He had the help of a few contacts to do this.
The South always harbored the unrealistic hope that they might persuade the British to intervene on their side as relations with the US had been difficult over incidents various on the Canadian frontier (and other issues). Of course their achilles heel was the slavery issue - a huge stumbling block in terms of British support.
Colonel Fremantle - An Englishman at Gettysburg
Although he had a distinguished career as a soldier and public servant, Sir Arthur James Lyon Fremantle (1835-1901) is best known to Americans as the unofficial British observer of the Battle of Gettysburg.
About the Man
Born in 1835, Fremantle came from a military family, and followed in his father's footsteps to join the Coldstream Guards. At the time of the American Civil War, he was assistant secretary to the Governor of Gibraltar. Although only a captain, due to his membership in the Household Division of the Guards he was entitled to be addressed as Lieutenant-Colonel.
Fremantle married in September 1863, and eventually rose in rank to General. He held several important military posts, among them Governor of Malta (1894-1899). He was knighted twice for his work, and eventually died in London in 1901.
The Voyage
In 1862, while serving in Gibraltar, Fremantle met Confederate politician Raphael Semmes and was fascinated by his tales of the American South. Accordingly, the next year he took a leave of absence to visit America on his own.
Fremantle arrived in Texas via Mexico in April 1863, and proceeded on a grand tour of the American South, visiting Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee, the Carolinas, and eventually up to Virginia. Along the way, he encountered many prominent Civil War figures such as General Joe Johnston, Braxton Bragg, PT Beauregard, and President Jefferson Davis. Unlike other journalists and observers of the time, Fremantle got to know and became very good friends with many of the people he encountered.
By mid-June he was with the Army of Northern Virginia, travelling in company with Times of London reporter Charles Lawley. The two were among several observers with the Army to witness Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania.
Gettysburg
While he was able to witness living conditions in the ANV, Fremantle was only on the periphery of the Battle of Gettysburg (his hosts did not want a non-combatant at the forefront). He was able to observe some of the second day's action by climbing up a convenient tree, a fact remarked by General John B Hood several years later. On the third day, he caught the aftermath of the Southern forces' retreat from Pickett's Charge, as well as the reactions of Generals James Longstreet and Robert E Lee to the debacle.
Shortly afterwards, Fremantle left Lee's army to make his way through the North. (His status as a British citizen granted him safe passage.) He arrived in New York just in time to witness the Draft Riots, and sailed back to England, arriving on 15 July.
The Fremantle Diary
The following year, Fremantle published an account of his journey, based on entries from the diaries he kept during his voyage. It became a bestseller at the time, not only in Britain but in the Southern States as well. Fremantle had been charmed by the treatment he'd received from the Southerners and, despite his observations of rationing, politicking, and poor discipline in the Southern ranks, predicted a victory for the South. This was a much-needed morale booster for the Confederates, who were pleased with a sympathetic account of their troubles presented to the rest of the world.
Despite his erroneous conclusion, Fremantle's book has become a solid reference for Civil War historians and re-enactors because he makes several observations about the minutiae of life in the South, and in the Confederate army in particular.
Fremantle's book has been reprinted in recent years, most notably in 1954 as The Freemantle Diary: , edited and with a commentary by author Walter Lord. Fremantle appears as a character (who receives his own chapter) in Michael Shaara's Gettysburg novel The Killer Angels, and is portrayed onscreen by James Lancaster in the movie Gettysburg (1993). Lord's edition is currently published by Burford Books, ISBN 1-58080-085-8.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 27, 2019 13:25:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Apr 28, 2019 20:03:47 GMT
I have always wanted to get to Hollywood Cemetery. I have always loved going through cemeteries, there is no better way to learn about a community's values and history than the cemetery-plus they usually have great public art, plus flora and fauna.
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Apr 25, 2020 14:58:22 GMT
Not only of Civil War interest, but also of April 2020 interest. Our taxes are still paying a Civil War Pension.
One hundred and fifty-five years since the guns of the Civil War fell silent, one Civil War pension is still being paid. Irene Triplett is the 89 year old mentally disabled daughter of Union veteran Moses Triplet, who passed away in 1938. (Moses was also a Confederate veteran, having deserted from the Confederate Army just before Gettysburg.) She receives $73.13 per month. Big wars cast long shadows.
Regards, Tom
|
|
mac
Brigadier General
Posts: 1,790
|
Post by mac on Apr 26, 2020 11:59:55 GMT
Amazing!
|
|
|
Post by deadwoodgultch on Sept 20, 2020 14:17:07 GMT
I have lost a friend, I only met this gentleman one time, in June 2014, here in VA prior to my 2nd trip to the Little Bighorn Battle Field. Ed was a featured speaker at the LBHA conference. After his talk I had the opportunity to spend part of the lunch break with him and others. Ed was the kind of person who made a friend of everyone he met. He was about 91 at the time, as I recall. I hope the contention regarding historical monuments did not cause him pain in his final days. Ed had a rich and rewarding life and was always willing to share his vast wealth of knowledge, www.battlefields.org/preserve/champions/rememberingbearrsRegards, Tom
|
|
|
Post by yanmacca on Sept 20, 2020 18:47:22 GMT
He certainly packed a lot of things into his 97 years Tom, he did have an adventuress life and left no regrets. I would have liked to have met him myself, but you did meet him and took something out of that meeting, which is what he wanted and which ultimately the meeting worthwhile.
|
|